Thursday, August 6, 2026
Home Blog Page 1708

Alaska’s self-licking ice cream cone

4

GARY WILKEN
GUEST COMMENTARY

I’ve great respect for Gov. Bill Walker. He’s been dealt some difficult hands to play, particularly in regard to our state’s budget. However, I’m very disappointed in his special session platform revealing troubling expectations for the upcoming special session.

With all due respect, our governor must speak in complete sentences. In an Oct. 2 presentation to Commonwealth North, he spoke of the Oct. 23 session and his expectations. The governor said, “We’re at a point where we can no longer be the only state in the nation that doesn’t have a broadbased tax.”

That sentence is incomplete. The governor should finish it by saying, “and we’re the only state in the nation with $64 billion in the bank solely for the benefit of its residents.”

Gary Wilken

Think of that: Alaskans have $64 billion in the bank, but our governor is asking the Legislature to ignore that wealth and tax only the working people of Alaska to fund government. There’s something wrong here.

Each and every Alaskan currently has an $87,000 plus investment account, and it’s growing every day.

For 30 years, each Alaskans’ account has yielded investment earnings, earnings used for our Alaska Permanent Fund dividend with the remainder left in the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve account, which today contains about $14 billion. This account has always been available for appropriation by our Legislature.

But for years the Legislature has been afraid to spend from the earnings reserve. They’ve been paralyzed by B.S. — that is, the bumper sticker screaming in the next election that he or she is “Raiding our Permanent Fund.” And then next comes the inevitable accusation:

“Hey! You’re stealing my PFD.”

It’s a common reaction, as it should be. The dividend is the people’s money. It’s the result of developing our resources and wisely setting aside 25 percent of the revenue for the people rather than spending it on bigger government.

But back to the earnings reserve, which is the source of the annual dividend check. Let’s look at the effect on the dividend check if we withdraw a certain amount from the earnings reserve account in order to fund services needed for government. The source of the following calculations is a document from the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. entitled “Financial Projection Comparisons of the Alaska Permanent Fund with Various Appropriation Levels to the General Fund” and is dated April 4, 2017.

It was produced by the corporation and is available from me at [email protected].

Everyone has their own number representing our deficit. My number is somewhere around $2 billion. So, let’s for the next five years take, if needed, $2 billion each year to help fund this shortfall. That amount, maybe with a little help from the constitutional budget reserve if needed, fills the budget hole.

But here comes that Big Question:

“What happens to my PFD check?”

According to the Permanent Fund Corp., these are the answers: 1. The first year it shrinks by less than a dollar; 2. The second year it’s $22 less; 3. Over the five-year period our dividend is a total of $420 less because of the $10 billion withdrawal; 4. Over five years that’s a reduction in your dividend of 3.2 percent. ($13,087 vs. $12,667).

Conclusion? The effect of using a reasonable amount of the earnings reserve account to fund needed government services has little effect on our dividend check.

Now, folks will say, “Well that’s OK for five years, but we’re draining our big savings account.”

That’s certainly cause for concern, but it’s not quite accurate. If we look beyond my five-year example, the documents show if we adopted a spending strategy for longevity by paying a static “half dividend” as we are now and not inflation- proofing unless needed, as we are now, the earnings reserve account lasts until fiscal 2030. There’s a lot of good things that will happen in Alaska in the next dozen years.

But you ask, “How can this be?” Well, it’s because of the enormous effect of $64 billion being invested around the world by the world’s best money managers. It’s the power of earnings. It’s what the late Michael Burns, CEO of the Permanent Fund Corp., said when speaking of the earnings reserve account.

He called it “Alaska’s self-licking ice cream cone.”

So, let’s complete the governor’s sentence by recognizing the true wealth of Alaska’s balance sheet. Let’s use the power of earnings to enable every Alaskan to contribute just a little so the working families of Alaska don’t have to pay a lot.

Gary Wilken is a retired small businessman and a former state senator who represented Fairbanks and Fort Wainwright from 1996 to 2008. He served eight years on the Senate Finance Committee, four years as a co-chairman.

Must Read comment: Free the land up

0

Highlighting comments from readers of Must Read Alaska

“Alaska has always been a colony. Mallott is wrong, we don’t need an income tax here.

The state of Alaska sitting on over 600,000 acres of land that it sells off in 5 acre chunks. 5 acres in Alaska is useless to anyone except for recreational cabins.

The average size of a cattle ranch in British Columbia is 1,000 acres. And there are quite a few of them. Release the land to people who want to create farms and ranches or any other business where they can turn a profit.

There is no reason why Alaska cannot be independent, no reason except for people like those we find in Juneau.

As with most problems, the answer isn’t more government. The answer is less.”

– Ken, responding to “Mallot to Alaskans: We need taxes, or we’ll be a colony”

Quote of the day: Mallott on tarped bodies, taxes

1

“In rural Alaska, to have a young person be murdered and lay in a rock quarry covered in a tarp for four days because police could not get there in time to begin the process of trying to bring a perpetrator to justice… Where is the bloated budget for that?”

– Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott on Oct. 19, 2017 speaking to the Alaska Federation of Natives.

“I am concerned that the sheer size of State government is making this more and more difficult. I speak from my experience as a staff level State employee, an agency director and member of the Alaska Cabinet when I suggest that much tighter control than currently exists be placed upon the growth of government operations. State employees are public servants in the highest sense and I do not mean to denigrate them. But the bureaucracy  of our government collectively is a powerful institution of a size when juxtaposed against Alaska’s total voting population that even now raises the issue of our real ability to control it.

“Having said that about State government growth (while cleverly not suggesting specific remedies) can I then responsibly move to discuss what more government must do? Absolutely for I believe that it is easily within the capacity of the current level of government operations to significantly increase it service if priorities are rearranged and the bureaucracy restructured. I suggest that the remedies are fairly obvious and known to policy makers. What must be determined is the political will to act.”

– Byron Mallott in 1980, in a booklet titled “Challenge of Plenty,” published by Dave Harbour and Common Sense for Alaska.

 

Department of Corruptions

9

CORRRECTIONS IS HAVING TROUBLE AT THE TOP

Without revealing why, the Walker Administration fired two senior executives from the Department of Corrections this month.

One is now-former Director of Institutions Bruce Busby. He was the top dog of the prison system.

The other is now-former Deputy Director Caitlin Price, who was Corrections Commissioner Dean Williams’ go-to person to get things done.

Both were dismissed simultaneously. No one will go on record as to why, but the word among Corrections officers is that there was an inappropriate relationship.

There were trips paid by the State to attend and perform official duties … some of which went unperformed … while certain other duties were performed. At the State’s expense.

There are photos, the folks in Corrections say. There are receipts for hotels and bed-and-breakfasts.

Why is this a scandal? Sworn officers, like police and corrections officers, have control over the lives of prisoners. The prison system puts guards and managers in positions of complete power and control over others, making it easily abused. So, the public wants them beyond reproach.

And there’s something else: Gov. Walker said he cleaned up Corrections in 2015. But after promoting Ron Taylor to commissioner upon taking office, the governor abruptly fired him a few months later, saying that the department was “broken” and “in turmoil.”

Why did Walker fire Taylor? His firing was based on a report written for him by the former director of the McLaughlin Youth Center, Dean Williams. Williams was in Walker’s close circle of advisers.

“I think the department has a hard time investigating itself like many agencies do, so out of our report we’re recommending a separate arm with existing resources,” Walker said in the terse press conference in November of 2015, when he announced that he had fired Taylor and put Walt Monegan in charge of Corrections, temporarily. (Monegan later became Public Safety commissioner.)

“We look at a process or model where we can investigate ourselves with high credibility and high trust. Right now we have a broken system,” Walker said.

The report by Williams called for a third-party investigation of administrative and criminal issues. Williams was a special assistant to the governor when he authored the report. He was just the guy to fix it.

Soon, Williams himself was commissioner.

A year later, Williams started a new internal affairs unit to transform the department to be more accountable. He asked a group to go through his report and help him restructure the department.

But people up and down the chain of command in Corrections had already found deep problems with the report. Some Corrections employees had lost their jobs, perhaps unfairly, due to the allegations by Williams.

The union, ACOA, started raising questions about the process used to generate the report that ultimately had gotten Williams his plum job. Pretty soon, there were too many questions and things got rather uncomfortable for Williams. The turmoil started to erode his credibility.

This is where it gets murky. Parts of this story cannot be written because sources would be revealed. Suffice it to say, what we can report so far appears to be only the tip of the iceberg.

“People felt like he got the job because he wrote the report in his favor, but there are a lot of disputable items in this report,” said one source who spoke on condition of anonymity. “There were some really questionable investigative techniques.”

Must Read Alaska learned from people within the Department of Corrections that the firing of two top officers in the Corrections Department for having an inappropriate relationship was needed, but it left untouched others who are engaged in similar behaviors that compromise the integrity of the department.

“It’s common knowledge among personnel that there are people at the top engaging in this behavior,” the source said, behavior that appears to involve misuse of state funds for inappropriate purposes.

In other words, not much has changed at the Department of Corruptions. Things may have gotten even worse.

 

(Do you have a tip about the Department of Corrections scandal? Must Read Alaska will protect you as a source. [email protected])

Sunday morning best: ‘There’s no truth’

1
“What the Kelly exchange proved to me the day before is there is no truth to be found anywhere in the (White House) press room. It’s all theater. It’s all there to put not only their best foot forward but to deny reality. They have not once admitted one mistake, while they are anxious to go after us as purveyors of fake media.”
– Brian Karem, Playboy Magazine correspondent and White House reporter, on CNN criticizing the Trump Administration and Chief of Staff John Kelly and saying he as a reporter had grown numb to the White House press briefings.
When it comes to denying reality, nobody does it better than Playboy. They’ve make a killing on promoting hyper-fake. Brian Karem’s Sunday morning sermon on CNN is a whole lot of fake outrage.
For something not fake, read John Kelly’s full remarks about President Trump’s call to the widow of the soldier:

Well, thanks a lot. And it is a more serious note. So I just wanted to perhaps make more of a statement than an — give more an explanation than a — what amounts to be a traditional press interaction.Most Americans don’t know what happens when we lose one of our soldiers, sailors, Airmen, Marines or Coast Guardsmen in combat. So let me tell you what happens. Their buddies wrap them up in whatever passes as a shroud, puts them on a helicopter as a routine and sends them home.

 

Their first stop along the way is when they’re packed in ice, typically at the airhead, and then they’re flown to usually Europe, where they’re then packed in ice again and flown to Dover Air Force Base. Where Dover takes care of the remains, embalms them, meticulously dresses them in their uniform with the — with the medals that they’ve earned, the emblems of their service, and then puts them on another airplane linked up with a casualty officer escort that takes them home.

 

A very, very good movie to watch, if you haven’t ever seen it, is “Taking Chance,” where this is done in a movie, HBO setting. Chance Phelps was killed under my command right next to me. And it’s worth seeing that, if you’ve never seen it. So that’s the process.

 

While that’s happening, a casualty officer typically goes to the home very early in the morning and waits for the first lights to come on. And then he knocks on the door, typically the mom and dad will answer. Wife. And if there is a wife, this is happening in two different places. If the parents are divorced, three different places. And the casualty officer proceeds to break the heart of a family member and stays with that family until — well, for a long, long time. Even after the internment. So that’s what happens. Who are these young men and women? They are the best 1 percent this country produces.

 

Most of you, as Americans, don’t know them. Many of you don’t know anyone who knows any one of them. But they are the very best that this country produces. And they volunteer to protect our country when there’s nothing in our country anymore that seems to suggest that selfless service to the nation is not only appropriate, but required. But that’s all right.

 

Who writes letters to the families? Typically the company commander. In my case, as a Marine, the company commander, battalion commander, regimental commander, division commander, secretary of defense, typically the service chief, commandant of the Marine Corps and the president typically writes a letter.

 

Typically, the only phone calls a family receives are the most important phone calls they can imagine, and that is from their buddies. In my case, hours after my son was killed, his friends were calling us from Afghanistan, telling us what a great guy he was.

 

Those are the only phone calls that really matter. And, yes, the letters count a degree, but there’s not much that really can take the edge off what a family member is going through.

 

So, some presidents have elected to call. All presidents, I believe, have elected to send letters. If you elect to call a family like this, it is about the most difficult thing you can imagine. There’s no perfect way to make that phone call.

 

When I took this job and talked to President [Donald] Trump about how to do it, my first recommendation was he not do it, because it’s not the phone call that parents, family members are looking forward to. It’s nice to do, in my opinion, in any event.

 

He asked me about previous presidents, and I said I can tell you that President [Barack] Obama, who was my commander-in-chief when I was on active duty, did not call my family. That was not a criticism. That was just to simply say, I don’t believe President Obama called. That’s not a negative thing.

 

I don’t believe President [George W.] Bush called in all cases. I don’t believe any president, particularly when the casualty rates are very, very high, that presidents call.

 

But I believe they all write. So, when I gave that explanation to our president three days ago, he elected to make phone calls in the case of the four young men who we lost in Niger at the earlier part of this month. And then he said, you know, what — how do you make these calls? If you’re not in the family, if you have never worn the uniform, if you have never been in combat, you can’t even imagine how to make that call.

 

I think he very bravely does make those calls.

 

The call in question that he made yesterday, day before yesterday now, were to four family members, the four fallen. And, remember, there’s a next of kin designated by the individual. If he’s married, that’s typically the spouse. If he’s not married, that’s typically the parents, unless the parents are divorced, and then he selects one of them. If he didn’t get along with parents, he will select a sibling.

 

But the point is, the phone call is made to the next of kin, only if the next of kin agrees to take the phone call. Sometimes, they don’t.

 

So, a pre-call is made. The president of the United States or the commandant of the Marine Corps or someone would like to call. Will you accept the call? And, typically, they all accept the call.

 

So, he called four people the other day, and expressed his condolences in the best way that he could.

 

And he said to me, what do I say? I said to him, “Sir, there’s nothing you can do to lighten the burden on these families. But let me tell you what I tell them. Let me tell you what my best friend, Joe Dunford, told me, because he was my casualty officer. He said, ‘Kel, he was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed. He knew what he was getting into by joining that 1 percent. He knew what the possibilities were, because we’re at war. And when he died’ — and the four cases we’re talking about Niger, in my son’s case, in Afghanistan — ‘when he died, he was surrounded by the best men on this earth, his friends.'”

 

That’s what the president tried to say to four families the other day.

 

I was stunned when I came to work yesterday morning and brokenhearted at what I saw a member of Congress doing, a member of Congress who listened in on a phone call from the president of the United States to a young wife, and in his way tried to express that opinion that he’s a brave man, a fallen hero. He knew what he was getting himself into, because he enlisted. There’s no reason to enlist. He enlisted. And he was where he wanted to be, exactly where he wanted to be, with exactly the people he wanted to be with when his life was taken. That was the message. That was the message that was transmitted.

 

It stuns me that a member of Congress would have listened in on that conversation, absolutely stuns me. And I thought at least that was sacred. You know, when I was a kid growing up, a lot of things were sacred in our country. Women were sacred, looked upon with great honor. That’s obviously not the case anymore, as we see from recent cases. Life, the dignity of life was sacred. That’s gone. Religion, that seems to be gone as well. Gold Star families, I think that left in the convention over the summer.

 

I just thought the selfless devotion that brings a man or woman to die on the battlefield, I just thought that that might be sacred.

 

And when I listened to this woman and what she was saying and what she was doing on TV, the only thing I could do to collect my thoughts was to go and walk among the finest men and women on this earth. And you can always find them, because they’re in Arlington National Cemetery. I went over there for an hour-and-a-half, walked among the stones, some of whom I put there, because they were doing what I told them to do when they were killed.

 

I’ll end with this. And in October — or April, rather, of 2015, I was still on active duty. And I went to the dedication of the new FBI field office in Miami. And it was dedicated to two men who were killed in a firefight in Miami against drug traffickers in 1986 by the name of Grogan and Duke. Grogan almost retired, 53 years old. Duke, I think less than a year on the job. Anyways, they got in a gunfight and they were killed. Three other FBI agents were there, were wounded, now retired.

 

So, we go down. Jim Comey gave an absolutely brilliant memorial speech to those fallen men and the — and to all of the men and women of the FBI who serve our country so well and law enforcement so well. There were family members there. Some of the children that were there were only three or four years old when their dads were killed on that street in Miami-Dade. Three of the men that survived the fight were there and gave a rendition of how brave those men were and how they gave their lives.

 

And a congresswoman stood up, and in a long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise, stood up there in all of that and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call, he gave the money, the $20 million, to build the building, and she sat down. And we were stunned, stunned that she’d done it. Even for someone that is that empty a barrel, we were stunned.

 

But, you know, none of us went to the press and criticized. None of us stood up and were appalled. We just said, “OK, fine.”

 

So, I still hope, as you write your stories, and I appeal to America, that let’s not let this maybe last thing that is held sacred in our society, a young man, a young woman going out and giving his or her life for our country, let’s try to somehow keep that sacred. But it eroded a great deal yesterday by the selfish behavior of a member of Congress.

 

So, I’m willing to take a question or two on this — on this topic. Let me ask you this. Let me ask you this.

 

Is anyone here a Gold Star parent or sibling? Does anyone here know a Gold Star parent or sibling?

 

OK. You get the question.

 

REPORTER QUESTION: Thank you, Gen. Kelly. First of all, you have a great deal respect, semper fi, for everything that you have ever done, but if we could take this a bit further, why were they in Niger? What was — we were told they weren’t in armored vehicles and there was no air cover. So, what are the specifics about this particular incident, and why were we there, and why are we there?

 

Well, I would start by saying there is an investigation.

 

Let me back up and say, the fact of the matter is, young men and women that wear our uniform are deployed around the world, and there are tens of thousands, and near the DMZ, in North Korea, and in Okinawa ready to go — in South Korea — in Okinawa, ready to go, all over the United States, training, ready to go. They’re all over Latin America. Down there, they do mostly drug interdiction working with our partners, our great partners, the Colombians, the Central Americans, the Mexicans.

 

You know, there’s thousands. My own son right now in — back in the fight for his fifth tour in — against ISIS. There’s thousands of them in Europe, acting as a deterrent, and throughout Africa, and they’re doing the nation’s work there, and not making a lot of money, by the way, doing it. They love what they do.

 

So, why were they there? They’re there working with partners, local Africa — all across Africa in this case, Niger, working with partners, teaching them how to be better soldiers, teaching them how to respect human rights, teaching them how to fight ISIS, so that we don’t have to send our soldiers and Marines there in their thousands. That’s what they were doing there.

 

Now, there is an investigation. There’s always an — unless it’s a very, very conventional death in a conventional war — there’s always an investigation. Of course, that operation is conducted by AFRICOM that is — of course, works directly for the secretary of defense. There is a — I talked to Jim Mattis this morning. I think he made statements this afternoon. There’s an investigation ongoing. An investigation doesn’t mean anything was wrong. An investigation doesn’t mean people’s heads are going to roll.

 

The fact is, they need to find out what happened and why it happened. But, at the end of the day, ladies and gentlemen, you have to understand that these young people, and sometimes old guys, put on the uniform, go to where we send them to protect our country. Sometimes, they go in large numbers to invade Iraq and invade Afghanistan. Sometimes, they’re working in small units, working with our partners in Africa, Asia, Latin America, helping them be better. But, at the end of the day, they’re helping those partners be better at fighting ISIS in North Africa to protect our country, so that we don’t have to send large numbers of troops.

 

Any other — someone who knows who knows a Gold Star fallen person.

 

John.

 

REPORTER QUESTION: General, thank you for being here today, and thank you for your service. There has been some talk about the timetable of the release of the statement about the — I think, at that point, it was three soldiers killed in Niger. Can you talk us through the timetable of your release that information? And what part did the fact that a beacon was pinging during that time have to do with the release of the statement? And were you concerned that divulging information early might jeopardize a soldier?

 

Yes, first of all, that’s — we are at the — at the highest level of the U.S. government. The people that will answer those questions will be the people at the other end of the military pyramid. I’m sure they’re — the special forces group is conducting — I know they’re conducting an investigation. That investigation, of course, under the auspices of AFRICOM ultimately will go to the Pentagon.

 

I have read the same stories you have. I actually know a lot more than I’m letting on, so I’m — but I’m not going to tell you. There is an investigation being done, but, as I say, the men and women of our country that are serving all around the world — I mean, what the hell is my son doing back in the fight? He’s back in the fight because, working with Iraqi soldiers who are infinitely better than they were years ago, to take ISIS on directly, so that we don’t have to do it. Small numbers of Marines where he is, working alongside those guys. That’s why they’re out there, whether it’s Niger, Iraq, or whatever. We don’t want to send tens of thousands of American soldiers and Marines in particular to go fight.

 

I will take one more, but it’s going to be from someone who knows….

 

REPORTER QUESTION: General, when you talk about Niger, sir, what is your intelligence telling you about the Russian connection with them and what’s — the stories that are coming out now are….

 

That’s a question for NORTHCOM or for — not NORTHCOM — or — AFRICOM or DOD.

 

Thank you very much.

 

As I walk off the stage, understand there’s tens of thousands of American kids, mostly, doing the nation’s bidding all around the world. They don’t have to be in uniform. You know, when I was a kid, every man in my life was a veteran, World War II and Korea, and there was the draft. These young people today, they don’t do it for any other reason than their selfless — sense of selfless devotion to this great nation.

 

We don’t look down upon those of you that haven’t served. In fact, in a way we feel a little bit sorry, because you will never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kind of things our service men and women do, not for any other reason than they love this country.

 

So, just think about it. And I do appreciate your time.

Mallott to Alaskans: We need taxes, or we’ll be a colony

16

In an opinion placed in the Alaska Dispatch News, Alaska’s lieutenant governor makes the case for taxing the working class in Alaska. His opinion is an excerpt from his speech at Alaska Federation of Natives that he gave on Oct. 19. Here is the opinion in full:

By LT. GOV. BYRON MALLOTT

We need to have a serious conversation about our fiscal crisis.

Over the last three years, the Legislature has drawn down over $14 billion of Alaska’s financial reserves. With oil prices expected to stay essentially where they are, we won’t get that money back anytime soon. We are down to the last of those reserves — barely $2.5 billion — as we go into the 2018 Legislature and the budget we must present to Alaskans. Gov. Bill Walker has called the Legislature into special session multiple times over the last two years to pass a complete plan. The plan he presented — a complete plan — would have allowed us to close that gap in the first Legislature of his service. Instead, we find ourselves on the precipice of disaster.

As we get ready to go into next week’s special session, there are phrases that ring in my ears that shake me to my soul. We’ve reduced government spending to 2008 levels; state spending is so minimal that we are now in a recession. But we continue to hear assertions that we “have a bloated state budget.”

This phrase comes from some members of the Alaska legislative leadership. But the facts on the ground are in stark contrast to those assertions. We do not have the public safety services that we need. In rural Alaska, we’ve had a young person be murdered and laid in a rock quarry covered by a tarp for four days because police could not get there to begin the process of trying to bring a perpetrator to justice.

Where is the bloated budget to deal with that?

The educational achievement of our schools has so much that is needed to improve, despite the gains we have made.

Where is the bloated budget to deal with those issues?

Nationally and in our state, we’re dealing with a massive opioid crisis.

Where is the bloated budget to deal with a crisis ripping families and communities apart?

Many Alaska coastal communities are served by the Alaska Marine Highway System — the only lifeline those communities have. They are as much a part of Alaska as any urban center. This past year, their budget was short-funded by $24 million, which suggests that a significant part of that service could have to go away.

We have worked hard to reduce inefficiency in government — and we’ll continue to do so. But simply cutting and waiting is not the answer.

We hear people say, “No new taxes until the government has right-sized itself.” Let’s not use that as an excuse to do nothing. The question we must ask is: What kind of Alaska do we want to have in the future?

If we do not resolve Alaska’s fiscal crisis in this special session, and the 2018 session, you will see this:

You will see us having spent the last of our reserves. You will see those who want a minimal government having achieved it simply by doing nothing. You will not have had a vision such as what Gov. Walker has put forward that is built on values and prosperity. It includes a sense of shared purpose, and a desire to make Alaska the kind of place we know it can become. A place where economic development occurs, but is done with balance and respect for the land.

So, don’t just tell us, “reduce the budget.” Tell us how. If government is so bloated, tell us how we’re going to deal with the opioid crisis, make our people feel safe and uphold justice statewide. Tell us how we are going to have health services across the state that meet our needs, and invest in our infrastructure, ports, schools, public buildings, roads and, yes, our ferry system. Tell us how we can build an Alaska that gives our children opportunity.

We will either have that, or we will be a colony. It’s that simple.

Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott is a co-founder of the Alaska Federation of Natives. This op-ed appeared in the Alaska Dispatch News as an excerpt from Mallott’s  Oct. 19 AFN address. The speech is available here.

Survey: Anchorage wants your opinion on homelessness

‘CONDESCENDING AND MANIPULATIVE’

You’ll never find this survey online because it’s so well hidden, even though it is sponsored by United Way, The Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness, and the Municipality of Anchorage. Let’s just call it one of the best kept secret surveys of the season.

None of the sponsors has links to the survey from their own web pages, but it has been shared by Anchorage Assemblyman Christopher Constant via Facebook. That’s where we picked it up.

Nevertheless, a few Anchorage residents found the Community Perception of Homelessness in Anchorage survey and spent the 10 minutes filling it out.

The response has been less than glowing. One commenter wrote this to the Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services, which is the owner of the survey:

“I found this survey condescending, manipulative, and not an effective way to achieve the stated goal. Furthermore, it failed to identify or differentiate between causes of homelessness or discuss the need for multiple different solutions to address root causes. Though the introduction says the municipality is looking for feedback and dialogue, the “survey” is just a series of questions that aim to get respondents to identify more with homeless people. While that may be a worthwhile endeavor, it is manipulative not to say so up front and I found it to be a waste of time for people who actually want to provide feedback on solutions to go through that exercise.”

Another added:

“(Name omitted)’s comment nailed it. Truly, if the point was to convince the greater community (as opposed to the municipality and nonprofit sector) to help take responsibility for homelessness in Anchorage, a survey is the wrong format. This is misleading and offensive.”

If the Muni is looking for an opinion on Anchorage homelessness, then Must Read Alaska readers are here to help. Take the survey here:

Community Perceptions on Homelessness Survey

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/plantoendhomelessness

Complete the survey by Nov. 3, 2017.

Do you agree that the survey is condescending and manipulative?

 

State: Edge of marsh created by railroad now needs protection

3

The State of Alaska is trying to purchase 2.2 acres of land along the edge of Potter Marsh in Anchorage. The area to be purchased from a private land owner is close to the wetland’s parking lot.

The Department of Fish and Game fears that if the land is developed into home sites, it might impact the aesthetics of the marsh.

The 564-acre marsh is not a creation of Mother Nature, but was a result of the construction of the Alaska Railroad embankment in 1916-17. The embankment built by the railroad backed up the water coming from Rabbit Creek and created a large marsh with ponds that were made by excavation of earth needed for the embankment.

Now, Fish and Game wants to keep the 100-year-old marsh in its manmade “natural state,” rather than allow homes to be built within sight of it, in an area zoned for residential.

The Audubon Society is trying to help the State buy the land and has launched a fundraising page on behalf of the State. Land that goes into government hands is not taxable by the City of Anchorage.

“The longtime Alaskan family who owns the parcel would like to see it conserved as part of the refuge and has generously agreed to a reduced sale. If not acquired and protected, the area could be cleared, filled and developed, significantly impacting the natural setting and visitor experience of the boardwalk and refuge,” the group says, without mentioning the tens of thousands of dollars in property taxes that the waterfront property would generate if developed.

“Our goal is to raise the needed funds by Dec. 31, 2017,” the group writes. To help, click here.